Operational improvements at Eskom have been real, says the author.
Image: File
South Africa’s energy debate is increasingly shaped by a tension that sits beneath every technical or commercial discussion. It is not only about tariffs, transmission ownership, localisation targets or coal plant retirements. It is about trust.
The recent barrage around the Transmission System Operator has exposed how fragile that trust remains. On one side are reformers arguing that structural separation of transmission is essential to unlock investment and restore credibility. On the other are voices cautioning against over reach, warning that attempts to neutralise bad actors can produce collateral damage. Both positions contain truth.
What sits underneath them is a trust deficit that still defines the operating environment. It is tempting to argue that state capture is behind us. Operational improvements at Eskom have been real. Generation performance has stabilised. Diesel use has fallen sharply. Crisis conditions have eased. Legislative reform has advanced. The President has intervened to clarify that transmission ownership must sit in an independent state-owned entity. These are not trivial steps.Yet it would be naïve to believe that institutional culture resets itself simply because policy has been amended.
State capture was not a single episode. It was a governance pattern. It entrenched networks of influence across procurement systems, municipal structures, regulatory processes and corporate leadership. The Zondo Commission documented this at scale. The institutional memory of that period does not evaporate in one electoral cycle.The result is a structural suspicion that now attaches to every major reform initiative.
When Eskom proposes life extension for ageing coal stations, critics assume hidden motives. When localisation rules are amended, investors question whether they will be enforced consistently. When transmission reform shifts direction, stakeholders read political interference. Even when improvements are genuine, the default reaction is doubt.This reaction is not irrational. South Africa has repeatedly drafted credible reform policy only to see implementation diluted. In the renewable energy programme, stop-start procurement cycles and political intervention undermined manufacturing investment. In transmission reform, ring-fencing without full separation blurred accountability. In municipal governance, debt accumulation continued despite regulatory oversight. Each episode reinforced the perception that reform can be neutered from within.
Trust shocks of this magnitude alter behaviour. Investors demand higher returns to compensate for uncertainty. Civil society groups scrutinise every policy detail. Industry lobby groups push aggressively to shape outcomes in their favour. Public debate hardens. The system becomes slower because every actora ssumes that someone, somewhere, is acting in bad faith. Goodwill is insufficient in such an environment. Public statements about integrity do not restore confidence.
Trust returns through repeated, observable evidence. Transmission assets must actually transfer to the new entity. Connection queues must be published and adhered to. Procurement outcomes must withstand scrutiny. Coal retirements must proceed on schedule where economics demand it. Local content rules must align with industrial capability and be enforced consistently. Reformers often argue that constant questioning slows progress. That frustration is understandable.
Implementation is difficult even under stable conditions. But the questioning itself is part of the repair process. In a system that has experienced institutional capture, scrutiny is not sabotage. It is a safeguard.This does not mean that every reform initiative is compromised. Nor does it imply that current leadership operates in bad faith. Operational recovery at Eskom has demonstrated that performance can improve.Transmission ownership clarification by the Presidency signals political will to correct earlier contradictions. These are necessary steps.They are not sufficient.
South Africa’s energy system now operates in a post-capture reality. Incentives remain misaligned where monopoly structures persist. Implementation risk remains where governance overlaps blur accountability. Lobby groups continue to test the boundaries of reform. The task is not to declare the crisis over. The task is to institutionalise reform in ways that make back sliding difficult.This is where structural design matters. Independent transmission governance reduces discretion.Transparent market rules limit rent-seeking. Competitive procurement constrains manipulation.
Separation of roles clarifies accountability. These are not ideological preferences. They are guardrails.The trust deficit will not close through optimism. It will close through evidence. If grid expansion accelerates under an independent TSO, confidence will follow. If water infrastructure stabilises underdirect intervention and consequence management, confidence will follow. If tariff adjustments reflectgenuine cost discipline rather than protection of legacy inefficiencies, confidence will follow.
South Africa has entered a phase where the quality of implementation will determine the credibility of reform. The system no longer needs crisis declarations. It needs institutional behaviour that holds steady under pressure.
Thomas Garner holds a Mechanical Engineering degree from the University of Pretoria and an MBA from the University of Stellenbosch Business School.
Image: Supplied
Thomas Garner holds a Mechanical Engineering degree from the University of Pretoria and an MBA from the University of Stellenbosch Business School. Thomas is self-employed focusing on energy, energy related critical minerals, water and communities. He is a Fellow of the South African Academy of Engineering and a Management Committee member of the South African Independent Power Producers Association.
*** The views expressed here do not necessarily represent those of Independent Media or IOL.
BUSINESS REPORT